<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:go='http://ns.gigaom.com/'
xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wholesale Internet Bandwidth Prices Keep Falling</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:56:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Internet Evolution - Mary E. Shacklett - Bandwidth: Hidden Cost of Cloud Computing</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/#comment-149018</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Internet Evolution - Mary E. Shacklett - Bandwidth: Hidden Cost of Cloud Computing]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:24:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/?p=23908#comment-149018</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;[...] 2008, the cost of IP transit, which is the wholesale bandwidth that service providers purchase,  declined 30 to 40 percent per gigabit Ethernet port in major U.S. [...]&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 2008, the cost of IP transit, which is the wholesale bandwidth that service providers purchase,  declined 30 to 40 percent per gigabit Ethernet port in major U.S. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Technology blog &#187; Skype Sniffing Around Web Chat Startups</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/#comment-149017</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Technology blog &#187; Skype Sniffing Around Web Chat Startups]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2009 04:59:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/?p=23908#comment-149017</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] were ever going to make a decent profit from Internet-based telephony. But with bandwidth prices decreasing worldwide at a fast rate, it makes a lot of sense for Skype to at least consider moving into web applications [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] were ever going to make a decent profit from Internet-based telephony. But with bandwidth prices decreasing worldwide at a fast rate, it makes a lot of sense for Skype to at least consider moving into web applications [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Skypeが訴訟逃れのためにチャットのサイトを買う？</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/#comment-149016</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Skypeが訴訟逃れのためにチャットのサイトを買う？]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:19:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/?p=23908#comment-149016</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] 今日までSkypeは、もっぱらデスクトップとモバイルのソフトを使ってインターネット上のピアツーピアの起呼を行っている。これは意外なことではなく、Skypeがスタートした2003年ごろは、通信帯域の費用が今よりも桁違いに高くて、インターネット電話でまともな利益を上げるためには専用のデスクトップアプリケーションを使わざるをえなかった。しかし帯域の価格が急速に全世界的に低下するに伴い、SkypeはWebからでも十分使えるのではないか、という話になってきた。そのための早道は、Web上の既存の通信〜コミュニケーションサイト、TokBox、PalTalk、Tinychatなどを買うことではないだろうか。 [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 今日までSkypeは、もっぱらデスクトップとモバイルのソフトを使ってインターネット上のピアツーピアの起呼を行っている。これは意外なことではなく、Skypeがスタートした2003年ごろは、通信帯域の費用が今よりも桁違いに高くて、インターネット電話でまともな利益を上げるためには専用のデスクトップアプリケーションを使わざるをえなかった。しかし帯域の価格が急速に全世界的に低下するに伴い、SkypeはWebからでも十分使えるのではないか、という話になってきた。そのための早道は、Web上の既存の通信〜コミュニケーションサイト、TokBox、PalTalk、Tinychatなどを買うことではないだろうか。 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Skype Sniffing Around Web Chat Startups</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/#comment-149015</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Skype Sniffing Around Web Chat Startups]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:34:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/?p=23908#comment-149015</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] were ever going to make a decent profit from Internet-based telephony. But with bandwidth prices decreasing worldwide at a fast rate, it makes a lot of sense for Skype to at least consider moving into web applications [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] were ever going to make a decent profit from Internet-based telephony. But with bandwidth prices decreasing worldwide at a fast rate, it makes a lot of sense for Skype to at least consider moving into web applications [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Do the Math...</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/#comment-149014</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Do the Math...]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 04:59:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/?p=23908#comment-149014</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If everyone whining did the simple math, they&#039;d all shut up about how they are being robbed by the ISP&#039;s...

If an ISP is charging you $50/month for 10Mbps speed and has to pay $14/Mb for transit costs, how are you getting it so cheap?

The answer is that the industry utilizes a mathematical model (usually 4:1). Using such a model then shows that they are receiving $200/month for the 10Mb they are selling. Which if the 10Mb costs them $140/month, then they are making $60/month in Gross revenue, minus all the expenses they have.

Now you add those who want to utilize P2P 24/7/365, they either have to spend more for bandwidth or they will charge you more OR cap those who are abusing the network relationship.

Makes perfect sense to me.....]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If everyone whining did the simple math, they&#8217;d all shut up about how they are being robbed by the ISP&#8217;s&#8230;</p>
<p>If an ISP is charging you $50/month for 10Mbps speed and has to pay $14/Mb for transit costs, how are you getting it so cheap?</p>
<p>The answer is that the industry utilizes a mathematical model (usually 4:1). Using such a model then shows that they are receiving $200/month for the 10Mb they are selling. Which if the 10Mb costs them $140/month, then they are making $60/month in Gross revenue, minus all the expenses they have.</p>
<p>Now you add those who want to utilize P2P 24/7/365, they either have to spend more for bandwidth or they will charge you more OR cap those who are abusing the network relationship.</p>
<p>Makes perfect sense to me&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: salehoo</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/#comment-149013</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[salehoo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:43:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/?p=23908#comment-149013</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s been awhile since this discussion was talked about and I haven&#039;t seen any significant decrease in my bandwidth bill. How about yours?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s been awhile since this discussion was talked about and I haven&#8217;t seen any significant decrease in my bandwidth bill. How about yours?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: When Half-Assed Is Good Enough — Shooting at Bubbles</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/#comment-149012</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[When Half-Assed Is Good Enough — Shooting at Bubbles]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:04:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/?p=23908#comment-149012</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Already we are seeing speed and data caps being instituted by these gatekeepers even though the wholesale rates for Internet bandwidth is dropping across the [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Already we are seeing speed and data caps being instituted by these gatekeepers even though the wholesale rates for Internet bandwidth is dropping across the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Friday Tech Roundup &#171; Work, Wine and Wheels</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/#comment-149011</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Friday Tech Roundup &#171; Work, Wine and Wheels]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:26:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/?p=23908#comment-149011</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/ [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] <a href="http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/" rel="nofollow">http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: G</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/#comment-149010</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[G]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:43:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/?p=23908#comment-149010</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Om - In the list of &#039;..the more well known IP Transit providers&#039; I find it iteresting that you leave of Sprint.  Are you implying that Sprint is either not well known, or not an IP Transit provider?  The answer to both should be no.  Sprint, as a Tier 1 ISP should make your list as they even provide transit to some of the providers you listed.  The point of your article though, is right on.  Competition and comodity based nature of the IP Transit market will continue to drive prives lower.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Om &#8211; In the list of &#8216;..the more well known IP Transit providers&#8217; I find it iteresting that you leave of Sprint.  Are you implying that Sprint is either not well known, or not an IP Transit provider?  The answer to both should be no.  Sprint, as a Tier 1 ISP should make your list as they even provide transit to some of the providers you listed.  The point of your article though, is right on.  Competition and comodity based nature of the IP Transit market will continue to drive prives lower.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Srini Addepalli</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/#comment-149009</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Srini Addepalli]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 10:37:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/?p=23908#comment-149009</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The fall in prices of IP transit reflects the reduction in costs of providing IP bandwidth and to a certain extent - at least in the US - increased competition, and thus, marginal pricing. The likelihood of this getting translated (proportionally) into retail broadband prices is low.

For a new broadband network (i.e. new access) - true in many developing countries that either have no copper or haven&#039;t unbundled their local loop, Internet bandwidth contributes just about 20-30% of total cost; as content becomes more local, this proportion reduces further. Simultaneously, the cost of laying and/or upgrading last mile is going up.

It is a matter of time before backbone networks - even in over-supplied regions - run out of capacity and will need additional investments. At this point in time, about $5-8 billion is being invested in new submarine cable projects in Asia-Pac, Middle East, Africa, etc. Ten to twenty times more will be needed in enhancing access networks. Fixed rate, unlimited download packages cannot support such investments - undoubtedly, the cost of using Broadband in many markets incl. USA will go up in the next couple of years.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The fall in prices of IP transit reflects the reduction in costs of providing IP bandwidth and to a certain extent &#8211; at least in the US &#8211; increased competition, and thus, marginal pricing. The likelihood of this getting translated (proportionally) into retail broadband prices is low.</p>
<p>For a new broadband network (i.e. new access) &#8211; true in many developing countries that either have no copper or haven&#8217;t unbundled their local loop, Internet bandwidth contributes just about 20-30% of total cost; as content becomes more local, this proportion reduces further. Simultaneously, the cost of laying and/or upgrading last mile is going up.</p>
<p>It is a matter of time before backbone networks &#8211; even in over-supplied regions &#8211; run out of capacity and will need additional investments. At this point in time, about $5-8 billion is being invested in new submarine cable projects in Asia-Pac, Middle East, Africa, etc. Ten to twenty times more will be needed in enhancing access networks. Fixed rate, unlimited download packages cannot support such investments &#8211; undoubtedly, the cost of using Broadband in many markets incl. USA will go up in the next couple of years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nancy Kramer</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/#comment-149008</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nancy Kramer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:01:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/?p=23908#comment-149008</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To the commenter who wanted mobile broadband on a month to month basis. such a service exists and I use it.  I have had it about two months so far and am very pleased.  It costs $60 a month, no contract or deposite or anything.  You can read about it at the following link
http://www.millenicom.com/mobilebroadband/

There is also info on DSL Reports just search their site for it.
Enjoy!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To the commenter who wanted mobile broadband on a month to month basis. such a service exists and I use it.  I have had it about two months so far and am very pleased.  It costs $60 a month, no contract or deposite or anything.  You can read about it at the following link<br />
<a href="http://www.millenicom.com/mobilebroadband/" rel="nofollow">http://www.millenicom.com/mobilebroadband/</a></p>
<p>There is also info on DSL Reports just search their site for it.<br />
Enjoy!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jesse Kopelman</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/#comment-149007</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jesse Kopelman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:19:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/?p=23908#comment-149007</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Rudolf

You assume a level of integration within these companies that isn&#039;t there. The last mile network people are just another customer to the backbone guys and the backbone guys are just an ISP they are forced to deal with to the last mile guys. The rates charged to the last mile guys are pretty arbitrary, as after all the backbone guys have a monopoly. The benefits of good peering deals are not passed on to the last mile guys -- they&#039;re used to offset the backbone O&amp;M. By the same token, loss of peering revenue will not be passed directly on to the customer. Instead it will be reflected in a lower O&amp;M budget. The customer will feel it in terms of reduced quality of service (reduced support, slower network upgrades, longer turnarounds on field service requests, etc.). Remember, at the corporate level; sales makes money, operations costs money.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Rudolf</p>
<p>You assume a level of integration within these companies that isn&#8217;t there. The last mile network people are just another customer to the backbone guys and the backbone guys are just an ISP they are forced to deal with to the last mile guys. The rates charged to the last mile guys are pretty arbitrary, as after all the backbone guys have a monopoly. The benefits of good peering deals are not passed on to the last mile guys &#8212; they&#8217;re used to offset the backbone O&amp;M. By the same token, loss of peering revenue will not be passed directly on to the customer. Instead it will be reflected in a lower O&amp;M budget. The customer will feel it in terms of reduced quality of service (reduced support, slower network upgrades, longer turnarounds on field service requests, etc.). Remember, at the corporate level; sales makes money, operations costs money.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jesse Kopelman</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/#comment-149006</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jesse Kopelman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:03:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/?p=23908#comment-149006</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@John Thacker

But metering isn&#039;t really about last mile capacity, that&#039;s just the carriers&#039; Big Lie. Metering is a tool to keep profits high (keep consumer Internet access constant while carrier&#039;s price falls) and make it harder for TV over Broadband to compete with TV over cable/satellite. That carriers are so determined to ration access to the Internet is surely one of the factors driving falling Internet access prices.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@John Thacker</p>
<p>But metering isn&#8217;t really about last mile capacity, that&#8217;s just the carriers&#8217; Big Lie. Metering is a tool to keep profits high (keep consumer Internet access constant while carrier&#8217;s price falls) and make it harder for TV over Broadband to compete with TV over cable/satellite. That carriers are so determined to ration access to the Internet is surely one of the factors driving falling Internet access prices.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Link: Wholesale Internet Bandwidth Prices Keep Falling - GigaOM &#124; Nyquist Capital</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/#comment-149005</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Link: Wholesale Internet Bandwidth Prices Keep Falling - GigaOM &#124; Nyquist Capital]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:42:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/?p=23908#comment-149005</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Wholesale Internet Bandwidth Prices Keep Falling - GigaOM [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Wholesale Internet Bandwidth Prices Keep Falling &#8211; GigaOM [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rudolf</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/#comment-149004</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rudolf]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:18:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/?p=23908#comment-149004</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The funny thing is that as part of the overall costs of running a network the cost of IP-Transit are only very limited. Most of the money is in Capex. Given a good peering and transit mix and some careful oversubscription the cost of Transit per customer would be somewhere in the dollar per month range for most ISP&#039;s. (Back of envelope, no hard calculation) Certainly for the likes of AT&amp;T they are on the receiving end of most transit deals and do not pay for transit to others as they are a Tier 1 provider.

Actually come to think of it... dropping income from transit deals might drive the likes of AT&amp;T to put the squeeze on customers to get more money on that end of the two-sided market.

Also have a look at this peering and transit explanation (yes, by me)
http://arstechnica.com/guides/other/peering-and-transit.ars]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The funny thing is that as part of the overall costs of running a network the cost of IP-Transit are only very limited. Most of the money is in Capex. Given a good peering and transit mix and some careful oversubscription the cost of Transit per customer would be somewhere in the dollar per month range for most ISP&#8217;s. (Back of envelope, no hard calculation) Certainly for the likes of AT&amp;T they are on the receiving end of most transit deals and do not pay for transit to others as they are a Tier 1 provider.</p>
<p>Actually come to think of it&#8230; dropping income from transit deals might drive the likes of AT&amp;T to put the squeeze on customers to get more money on that end of the two-sided market.</p>
<p>Also have a look at this peering and transit explanation (yes, by me)<br />
<a href="http://arstechnica.com/guides/other/peering-and-transit.ars" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/guides/other/peering-and-transit.ars</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Between the Lines mobile edition</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/#comment-149003</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Between the Lines mobile edition]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 09:18:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/?p=23908#comment-149003</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Truth: Stock Hits $350 Sam Diaz: Trying to increase productivity? Send your employees home. GigaOm: Wholesale Internet Bandwidth Prices Keep Falling Photos: Messenger returns to Mercury Christopher Dawson: Google is your [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Truth: Stock Hits $350 Sam Diaz: Trying to increase productivity? Send your employees home. GigaOm: Wholesale Internet Bandwidth Prices Keep Falling Photos: Messenger returns to Mercury Christopher Dawson: Google is your [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

